April 11, 2018 - Loonie Politics

There were many expert opinions as to why Doug Ford decided to drop the campaign bus. Many of them were wrong-headed

The word 'expert' has broad meaning today.

Many people are invited to discuss their experiences in areas like business, labour, medicine, opinion polls, politics and media. Some have a real depth of knowledge, while others engage audiences with tidbits of information.

Alas, many so-called experts are severely lacking when it comes to providing expertise.

A recent example is Ontario Progressive Conservative Leader Doug Ford's decision to not have a campaign media bus during the upcoming provincial election. When media outlets went looking for experts for analysis on Ford's decision, the analysis was lazy and predictable: Ford doesn't want to face the media.

"One of the things that makes Doug Ford very attractive to people is his ability to sort of speak off the cuff and all that kind of stuff," University of Guelph political science professor Tamara Small told the Canadian Press on April 5, "but that is also the stuff â€¦ that could become problematic."

Queen's University political science professor Jonathan Rose said, "It'll be interesting to see if Doug Ford maintains that script and doesn't do as many photo ops as the other leaders. The reason why you do that, of course, is to focus on the policy and avoid any kind of problems with Ford going off-script."

Finally, Queen's University political science teaching fellow Tim Abray felt Ford "is attempting to bypass the accountability function of the free press by limiting access to his campaign. â€¦ This should not be blown off as insignificant."

This provided Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne with the perfect opportunity to tell the Toronto Star on April 5 that "it "looks like there's some hiding going on."

The experts have spoken, so we must savour every word and nod approvingly.

Yeah, sure.

There were many expert opinions and many wrong-headed conclusions. Had they seriously considered the way modern politics is conducted, they would've arrived at the real answer.

Canadian conservatives have suggested for years that media buses aren't necessary today. The old style of doing politics, which included carting reporters and columnists along to every campaign stop, has gradually been disappearing.

Think about it. Print publications are struggling and/or folding in Canada and beyond. Newsrooms are getting smaller, meaning the potential staff dedicated to a political campaign is shrinking. The growth of social media and online publications and ventures has created more flexibility for political parties, and less need for media buses.

Plus, there's an economic argument against this old-fashioned campaign tool. Ian Brodie, former chief of staff to prime minister Stephen Harper, nicely wrote in a tweet on April 5: "If you operate a campaign with a fixed limit on expenses, then every budget decision is a zero sum game. A dollar you spend operating and staffing a bus is a dollar you can't spend on something else."

Ford is a conservative and businessman. He understands the need to rein in spending, even if relates to PC party funds rather than taxpayer dollars. This is the man who wants to stop the gravy train in Ontario, after all.

Plus, he's not scared of the media and his handlers aren't scared of putting him in front of reporters. Does anyone seriously believe this?

This isn't Toronto City Hall and the media circus that followed his late brother Rob is gone. Rather, Ford's ability to communicate with people and the press brought him success in the PC leadership race, and continues to fill speaking halls and meeting rooms with ease.

Yes, Ford can sometimes be unpredictable, although he's been as steady as a rock during his rise in Ontario politics. Then again, other political leaders, including Wynne and NDP Leader Andrea Horwath, have their moments of unpredictability, too. The criticism goes both ways.

The moral of this story? Listen to the experts with a grain of salt but reach your own conclusions with the salt shaker we call life.

Troy Media columnist and political commentator Michael Taube is also a Washington Times contributor, Canadian Jewish News columnist, and radio and TV pundit. He was also a speechwriter for former Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.

Just under a year removed from getting spanked in his own riding by Andrew Scheer, Mad Max Bernier or perhaps we should call him "Whiny Max" is up to his old super principled antics, namely, coming out with a new salacious memoir about how he tried to take a bold stance against the eeeeeeeevil supply management cartel in the last CPC leadership race and was unjustly denied his rightful place at the top by a bunch of "fake conservatives".

I guess I can't be too mad about Whiny Max crying publicly about Muh Principles just when the party is overtaking the Liberals in the polls, because he, like all Canadian politicians, has no idea what a principled stance is. He believes that so long as you SAY you are a principled politician, people will have no choice but to believe you.

In the real world outside Canada, where politics actually means something, where actual work and results are expected, and where nobody cares about whose message is the most finely crafted, principles are supposed to be red lines that are strictly enforced. People can expect to be excommunicated should they step over these red lines, and anyone who does get defenestrated should expect no sympathy should they go boohooing to the national media the way Bernier is.

William F. Buckley, Jr., who would be a pretty good candidate for an actual Principled Conservative, made this pretty clear in his famous National Review Mission Statement:

The most alarming single danger to the American political system lies in the fact that an identifiable team of Fabian operators is bent on controlling both our major political parties, under the sanction of such fatuous and unreasoned slogans as "national unity," "middle-of-the-road," "progressivism," and "bipartisanship."

Max Bernier, on his most principled day, would of course never come close to saying something like this. Sure, he whines about being undone by "fake conservatives", but he would never go so far as to say that they were dangers to the Canadian political system, or that "bipartisanship" was a BAD thing.

Max, like all Canadian politicians, sees no contradiction between espousing capital-P Principles and building the biggest blue (or orange, or red) tent possible. He doesn't actually have to follow through on those principles by, say, confronting dairy farmers in his own province who are pro-supply management or suggesting that maybe the CPC isn't the party for them. If Andrew Scheer goes to the trouble of courting those same farmers, that's just proof of what a nasty and unprincipled character Scheer is!

But of course I can't let Andrew Scheer off the hook too easily, because he has his own issue with not being able to say no, doesn't he? He's still struggling with that pesky Rebel Media problem, the one Team Scheer keeps trying to downplay but still won't go away for some crazy reason.

If only William F. Buckley Jr. had said something about whether conservatives who have taken a hard turn into white nationalist territory should be treated with kid gloves or not. Oh wait a second, he did:

In a February 13, 1962, editorial headlined "The Question of Robert Welch," Buckley noted that many prominent conservatives had begun to doubt [John Birch Society Leader] Welch's utility in the struggle against Communist domination [â€¦..] Buckley urged all who shared those goals to "reject, out of a love of truth and country," Welch's "false counsels."

Now of course if you suggest to Scheer fans that, say, Faith Goldy should be denounced the way Buckley denounced Robert Welch, you will be met with an angry broadside to the effect that doing so would only give her credibility and that she should be ignored. And after all, does Faith Goldy really need to be the target when the Liberals are the true enemy?

And there you have it. Lip service to principles is great, but we have no business actually enforcing them and creating fences between conservatives when we constantly need all hands on deck to defeat the big, bad Liberals. But you can't come right out and say that, you understand.

That would be unprincipled.

Written by Josh Lieblein

Day: April 11, 2018

Click here for more

Click here for more

loonie politics

premium content